SALLY
CLARK and SADDAM HUSSEIN. (Feb 7.0) 900 words on the dangers of
inferential reasoning and pressure for successful prosecution. Powerful
comment by a retired engineer.
Brian Corbett
62 Radyr Avenue, Swansea, SA3 5DT
01792 424702
SALLY CLARK and SADDAM HUSSEIN 900 words
Last week we learned an appeal court had quashed Sally Clark’s life sentence. That conviction was based largely on the hypothetical improbability of two such cot deaths occurring by co-incidence of chance. But we now know it wasn’t merely chance, but that part of the evidence was not presented (the presence of lethal bacteria in the body), and another part overlooked (contrary to original evidence there was no retinal damage). We could all sympathise with the human scale of an error so clearly etched on the face of the victim, and be thankful that at least we no longer have a death penalty
How often have we seen the pressure on the prosecution to succeed lead through use of suspect evidence to a miscarriage of justice? When the military is involved the consequences of a misjudgement are no longer on a scale to which we can relate. Justification for military intervention is particularly difficult for a pre-emptive strike, which is by definition based on hypotheses of what might or might not occur. As Donald Rumsfeld said, ‘there are risks in acting and risks in not acting’. In such reasoning the assumptions made are all important. In Sally Clark’s case the basic premise of the prosecution was wrong, they were lucky to find some evidence (lethal bacteria) to mount and win the appeal.
At the time of her conviction the logic reminded me of that used to convince the public of the safety of nuclear power, whilst undeclared accidents were occurring, notably at the reprocessing plant of Windscale, now called Sellafield. The hidden imperative was to develop nuclear weapons. In a nuclear power reactor most of the uranium degrades but some transforms to plutonium, the fuel of nuclear weapons, and this is separated out of the spent fuel in reprocessing plants. (Hence today’s concerns about North Korea restarting its nuclear power stations.) With hindsight of the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl who would dare spin such safety figures now?
Would America have sought the UN resolution against Iraq but for September 11? Yet no evidence exists of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida at September 11. The majority of those terrorists were Saudi, non were Iraqi. Iraq had been contained by sanctions for a decade. Many countries have weapons of mass destruction and many have bad human rights records. So why did Iraq pose such a threat that it had to be singled out? Oil? Unfinished business? Confronting Saddam Hussein by forcing through a UN resolution threatening war if he did not disarm, or abdicate, was never a rational response to the diffuse threat from al-Qaida.
What attempt is being made to balance the argument by the certainty of casualties (predominantly Iraqi) in a war, the possibility that it will escalate into internal chaos or reverberate far outside Iraq’s borders, the probability that such a course will harden the resentment felt by the have-nots of this world and fuel terrorism against the west for another generation. Whatever else, war will underline the case for pursuing political aims by violence.
The entry for Dec 30 on the website, jonathanpollard.org/2002/, carries disturbing information about the source of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons. America was Iraq’s ally at the time of the Iran Iraq war.
The vast majority of the world’s oil reserves are in the Middle East. Iraq’s reserves are the surpassed only by Saudi Arabia’s. America’s economy depends on imported oil. The world economy depends on the availability of oil at a reasonable price, think back to the crash in 1974 when the price suddenly quadrupled.
An unstoppable inertia is gathering behind the massive preparations for an early pre-emptive war. The loss of face alone in pulling back and handing a propaganda scoop to Saddam Hussein is becoming enormous. The stock market flounders whilst this uncertainty exists, the oil price rises so the real economy may not be too far behind. The military build up continues. War, it seems, is all but inevitable if Saddam Hussein remains in charge. But is war a solution or will it actually augment the terrorist threat?
We are now being told the inspectors can’t hope to find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq because they are so small, mobile and easily hidden. So will they simply disappear like Osama bin Laden did from Afganistan and be an even greater threat for being dispersed? Colin Powell’s presentation was impressive but largely based on the compounding of inferences based on intelligence material, rather than hard fact. A month ago President Bush was so sure of his intelligence that he expected to present ‘smoking guns’. But intelligence does not have a good record for accuracy, witness the current Radio 4 series on the CIA.
The compounding of suspect evidence and suspect hypothesis led to a faulty verdict in the case of Sally Clark. If there is miscarriage of justice here, war will carry out the ultimate death penalty, massive destruction, and unleash potentially catastrophic long-lasting repercussions.
BRIAN CORBETT 7 February 2003
Sam wollaston, Guardian 18.30 7/2/03 It's nicely done Brian, but not really one for G2. You could try the comment
pages.
Seamas Milne Guardian sent 4 Feb 2003, late rejection from Stephen Moss
Dear Mr Corbett
Many thanks for your piece. I fear it is unlikely we will be able to use it ? we
are swamped by Iraq-related material at the moment, but if we can I will of
course let you know immediately.
Best wishes
Stephen Moss
Sent to Mike Holland, Comment Editor Observer, obviously tempted and liked juxtaposition of ideas. Too late really, Friday morning, needs to be in by Wednesday for Thurs meeting with columnists. He felt there was unlikely to be space the following week it being the weekend of the Iraq March so I withdrew it and took it unsuccessfully to the Independent.
There had been a slot on the comment pages obviously just given to first and only article by their Readers Editor!
Personal Notes
As an electronic engineering graduate of Imperial College and Fellow of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, I was author of several international conference papers on the development of computer control of industrial processes. Now I am a young OAP who writes. My other current interests include independent travel in Europe and Asia (with my wife and a rucksack), languages (both European and Asian), politics (as an observer), tech stocks, ball sports, ‘modern’ jazz, and photography.Brian Corbett
62 Radyr Avenue, Swansea, SA3 5DT
01792 424702
SALLY CLARK and SADDAM HUSSEIN 900 words
Last week we learned an appeal court had quashed Sally Clark’s life sentence. That conviction was based largely on the hypothetical improbability of two such cot deaths occurring by co-incidence of chance. But we now know it wasn’t merely chance, but that part of the evidence was not presented (the presence of lethal bacteria in the body), and another part overlooked (contrary to original evidence there was no retinal damage). We could all sympathise with the human scale of an error so clearly etched on the face of the victim, and be thankful that at least we no longer have a death penalty
How often have we seen the pressure on the prosecution to succeed lead through use of suspect evidence to a miscarriage of justice? When the military is involved the consequences of a misjudgement are no longer on a scale to which we can relate. Justification for military intervention is particularly difficult for a pre-emptive strike, which is by definition based on hypotheses of what might or might not occur. As Donald Rumsfeld said, ‘there are risks in acting and risks in not acting’. In such reasoning the assumptions made are all important. In Sally Clark’s case the basic premise of the prosecution was wrong, they were lucky to find some evidence (lethal bacteria) to mount and win the appeal.
At the time of her conviction the logic reminded me of that used to convince the public of the safety of nuclear power, whilst undeclared accidents were occurring, notably at the reprocessing plant of Windscale, now called Sellafield. The hidden imperative was to develop nuclear weapons. In a nuclear power reactor most of the uranium degrades but some transforms to plutonium, the fuel of nuclear weapons, and this is separated out of the spent fuel in reprocessing plants. (Hence today’s concerns about North Korea restarting its nuclear power stations.) With hindsight of the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl who would dare spin such safety figures now?
Would America have sought the UN resolution against Iraq but for September 11? Yet no evidence exists of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida at September 11. The majority of those terrorists were Saudi, non were Iraqi. Iraq had been contained by sanctions for a decade. Many countries have weapons of mass destruction and many have bad human rights records. So why did Iraq pose such a threat that it had to be singled out? Oil? Unfinished business? Confronting Saddam Hussein by forcing through a UN resolution threatening war if he did not disarm, or abdicate, was never a rational response to the diffuse threat from al-Qaida.
What attempt is being made to balance the argument by the certainty of casualties (predominantly Iraqi) in a war, the possibility that it will escalate into internal chaos or reverberate far outside Iraq’s borders, the probability that such a course will harden the resentment felt by the have-nots of this world and fuel terrorism against the west for another generation. Whatever else, war will underline the case for pursuing political aims by violence.
The entry for Dec 30 on the website, jonathanpollard.org/2002/, carries disturbing information about the source of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons. America was Iraq’s ally at the time of the Iran Iraq war.
The vast majority of the world’s oil reserves are in the Middle East. Iraq’s reserves are the surpassed only by Saudi Arabia’s. America’s economy depends on imported oil. The world economy depends on the availability of oil at a reasonable price, think back to the crash in 1974 when the price suddenly quadrupled.
An unstoppable inertia is gathering behind the massive preparations for an early pre-emptive war. The loss of face alone in pulling back and handing a propaganda scoop to Saddam Hussein is becoming enormous. The stock market flounders whilst this uncertainty exists, the oil price rises so the real economy may not be too far behind. The military build up continues. War, it seems, is all but inevitable if Saddam Hussein remains in charge. But is war a solution or will it actually augment the terrorist threat?
We are now being told the inspectors can’t hope to find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq because they are so small, mobile and easily hidden. So will they simply disappear like Osama bin Laden did from Afganistan and be an even greater threat for being dispersed? Colin Powell’s presentation was impressive but largely based on the compounding of inferences based on intelligence material, rather than hard fact. A month ago President Bush was so sure of his intelligence that he expected to present ‘smoking guns’. But intelligence does not have a good record for accuracy, witness the current Radio 4 series on the CIA.
The compounding of suspect evidence and suspect hypothesis led to a faulty verdict in the case of Sally Clark. If there is miscarriage of justice here, war will carry out the ultimate death penalty, massive destruction, and unleash potentially catastrophic long-lasting repercussions.
BRIAN CORBETT 7 February 2003
Sam wollaston, Guardian 18.30 7/2/03 It's nicely done Brian, but not really one for G2. You could try the comment
pages.
Seamas Milne Guardian sent 4 Feb 2003, late rejection from Stephen Moss
Dear Mr Corbett
Many thanks for your piece. I fear it is unlikely we will be able to use it ? we
are swamped by Iraq-related material at the moment, but if we can I will of
course let you know immediately.
Best wishes
Stephen Moss
Sent to Mike Holland, Comment Editor Observer, obviously tempted and liked juxtaposition of ideas. Too late really, Friday morning, needs to be in by Wednesday for Thurs meeting with columnists. He felt there was unlikely to be space the following week it being the weekend of the Iraq March so I withdrew it and took it unsuccessfully to the Independent.
There had been a slot on the comment pages obviously just given to first and only article by their Readers Editor!
Tried
same day with the Editor of the Independent who was also tempted and
dithered but felt it unlikely I could keep up with fast moving events.
I think it was Steve Richards who has an article about Iraq in today's Guardian in a vein related to this article and the last on Iraq, Ends and Means as we await publication of the Chilcot Enquiry. (comment added 5 July 2016)
I think it was Steve Richards who has an article about Iraq in today's Guardian in a vein related to this article and the last on Iraq, Ends and Means as we await publication of the Chilcot Enquiry. (comment added 5 July 2016)
No comments:
Post a Comment